Pathupati Subba Reddy (Died) by L.Rs & Ors. v. The Special Deputy Collector (LA)

4 S.C.R. 241 : 2024 INSC 286 Pathupati Subba Reddy (Died) by L.Rs. & Ors. v. The Special Deputy Collector (LA) [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 31248 of 2018] 08 April 2024 [Bela M. Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in refusing to condone the delay of 5659 days in filing the proposed appeal against the judgment of the reference court under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, by some of the Legal Representatives of a deceased Claimant who died pending the reference and who were not impleaded in the reference proceeding. Headnotes Limitation – Object of the law of limitation – Explained Held: The law of limitation is based on public policy and is enshrined in the legal maxim “interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium”, meaning there might be an end to a litigation – Statutes of limitation and prescription are statutes of peace and repose – When a right is not exercised or a remedy is not availed for a long time, it must cease to exist and law of limitation is a way to achieve it – Law of limitation bars time barred remedy rather than right with passage of time. [Paras 7 & 8] Limitation Act – The interplay between sections 3 and 5 – Section 5 needs “sufficient cause” to be proved as a condition precedent to condone delay Held: Section 3 being a substantive provision of mandatory nature needs to be interpreted strictly – Section 5 being a discretionary provision has to be interpreted liberally because it helps the Courts to do substantial justice – Based on the object of the law of limitation, viz., public policy, both these sections have to be construed harmoniously – The existence of ‘sufficient cause’ for condoning delay in filing the suit, appeal or application is a condition precedent to exercise the discretionary power of Courts to condone the delay. [Paras 14-16] * Author 242 [2024] 4 S.C.R. Limitation Act – Section 5 – Discretionary power – Explained Held: Where a case is brought before the court beyond the period of limitation, the applicant has to explain to the court as to what was the “sufficient cause” which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within the period of limitation – Even after ‘sufficient cause’ is established, the Court has the discretion to decide whether to allow or dismiss the application for condonation of delay upon the bonafides of the party – The discretion will not be exercised by the Court when the delay is caused by negligence, inaction or lack of bonafides – In such cases, even though the law of limitation harshly affects or causes inconvenience to the party, the Court has to apply it with all its rigour. [Paras 18, 23 to 25] Limitation Act – Section 5 – Non applicability of equity considerations Held: Equity has no place in condoning the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act – When a party does not adhere to the mandatory provisions of limitation, Courts cannot condone the delay on grounds of sympathy or compassion as it will be unjust to a person who files a case for remedies diligently and within time. [Paras 19 and 20] Limitation Act – Section 5 – Whether liberal interpretation of ‘Sufficient cause’ overrides substantial law of limitation?

Held: Concepts such as ‘liberal approach’, ‘justice-oriented approach’ and ‘substantial justice’ cannot be employed to override the substantial law of limitation – The Courts have to exercise the discretion systematically and in an informed manner to allow application for condonation of delay. [Para 21] Limitation Act – Section 5 – Relevance of merits of the case at hand Held: The merits of the case cannot be considered while dealing with the application for condonation of delay in filing appeals. [Para 22] Limitation Act – Principles regarding relevance of law of limitation, scope of section 3, power of court to condone delay under section 5 – Summarised Held: (i) Law of limitation is based upon public policy that there should be an end to litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy rather than the right itself; Digital Supreme Court Reports [2024] 4 S.C.R. 243 (ii) A right or the remedy that has not been exercised or availed of for a long time must come to an end or cease to exist after a fixed period of time; (iii) The provisions of the Limitation Act have to be construed differently, such as Section 3 has to be construed in a strict sense whereas Section 5 has to be construed liberally; (iv) In order to advance substantial justice, though liberal approach, justice-oriented approach or cause of substantial justice may be kept in mind but the same cannot be used to defeat the substantial law of limitation contained in Section 3 of the Limitation Act; (v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence; (vi) Merely some persons obtained relief in similar matter, it does not mean that others are also entitled to the same benefit if the court is not satisfied with the cause shown for the delay in filing the appeal; (vii) Merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning the delay; and (viii) Delay condonation application has to be decided on the parameters laid down for condoning the delay for the reason that the conditions have been imposed, tantamounts to disregarding the statutory provision. [Para 26] Case Law Cited Basawaraj and Anr. v.

Special Land Acquisition Officer. [2013] 8 SCR 227 : (2013) 14 SCC 81 – relied on. Bhag Mal alias Ram Bux and Ors. v. Munshi (Dead) by LRs. and Ors. [2007] 1 SCR 1114 : (2007) 11 SCC 285; Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Ors. v. Katiji and Ors. [1987] 2 SCR 387 : (1987) 2 SCC 107; Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. [1962] 2 SCR 762 : A.I.R. 1962 SC 361; Maqbul Ahmad and Ors. v. Onkar Pratap Narain Singh and Ors. A.I.R. 1935 PC 85; Brijesh Kumar and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. 2014 (4) SCALE 50; Lanka Pathupati Subba Reddy (Died) by L.Rs. & Ors. v. The Special Deputy Collector (LA) 244 [2024] 4 S.C.R.